Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bostick v. Flex Equipment Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 29, 2007No. B171567; No. B173455Published

1Concurrence

CROSKEY, Acting P. J., Concurring.

I concur in the decision affirming the judgment on the complaint, but for reasons different from those stated in the majority opinion. In my view, Proposition 51 applies to a strict products liability action involving a single indivisible injury, and Wimberly v. Derby Cycle Corp. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 618 [65 Cal.Rptr.2d 532] (Wimberly) was wrongly decided. Wimberly held that Proposition 51 did not modify the common law rule that the defendants in an action for strict products liability *100who were in the same chain of distribution of a defective product are…

2Cases cited74 opinions

  1. Patterson v. McLean Credit UnionSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.California Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
  4. Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975

69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API